From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755241Ab1DLMQJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Apr 2011 08:16:09 -0400 Received: from arkanian.console-pimps.org ([212.110.184.194]:39419 "EHLO arkanian.console-pimps.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754321Ab1DLMQF (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Apr 2011 08:16:05 -0400 Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 13:15:43 +0100 From: Matt Fleming To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: Tejun Heo , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , "Nikita V. Youshchenko" , Thomas Gleixner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] x86: signal: handle_signal() should use sigprocmask() Message-ID: <20110412131543.231659d2@mfleming-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20110411172201.GF32469@redhat.com> References: <20110411171957.GA32469@redhat.com> <20110411172201.GF32469@redhat.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.8cvs52 (GTK+ 2.22.0; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 19:22:01 +0200 Oleg Nesterov wrote: > This is ugly, but if sigprocmask() needs retarget_shared_pending() then > handle signal should follow this logic. In theory it is newer correct to ^^^ never > add the new signals to current->blocked, the signal handler can sleep/etc > so we should notify other threads in case we block the pending signal and > nobody else has TIF_SIGPENDING. > > Of course, this change doesn't make signals faster :/ > > Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov Reviewed-by: Matt Fleming I guess all assigments to current->blocked need auditing now? Forcing everything through sigprocmask() seems worthwhile to me. -- Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center